From: DonMcLRPI@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 1:30 PM
To: rule-comments@sec.gov
Subject: Nomination of Boardmembers
Sharon and I represent several million dollars in the market.
When Board members can agree to offshore partnerships, sweetheart loans and
unrealistic severance and retirement packages with OUR .... yes we
shareholders, in theory, are the owners .... MONEY ...
But We CANNOT even enter Board candidates to represent our "ownership",
something stinks!
Please begin the process of empowering shareholders (the Owners) to place
nominees on the ballot for any open seat. A 1% of outstanding shares vote
should be sufficient (Good grief, they still have to be elected.... to do any
of the "harm" officers and their surrogates claim will follow!) and this
hogwash about a 35% "triggering event is simply leaving the foxes in charge of
the Hen house. Exactly how many of those have there been in the last ten
years?
Really now .... ARE we owners? Exactly why can owners not nominate their
board?
Don't look now ..... but ...... Stalin is smiling at you ....
If not, simpy say so and as investors we can elect to go elsewhere with our
funds if we want ownership.
Make rules consistent with an honest reflection of ownership and some of the
abuse of power might just dissapear.
If you don't change the rules, the next scandle is directly the result of your
inaction.
Think about it!
All the new Tyco's on your watch!